Hello everybody. I am paying attention to the primary election in the US, but am quite confused by the results. http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/nh I was looking at this, and although Bernie Sanders clearly won, Hillary Clinton got more delegates for the race. Can please somebody explain this to me.
Unpledged superdelegates (some party officials and elected officials get their own votes) vote by their own personal preference and overwhelmingly support Clinton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate http://www.npr.org/2015/11/13/455812702/clinton-has-45-to-1-superdelegate-advantage-over-sanders
meaning the Superdeligates can swing the victory if they so choose, independent of how the people vote?
Only if it's close. There's 712 superdelegates and 2,382 overall delegates are needed to get the nomination. Clinton had a superdelegate advantage over Obama, albeit a smaller one, and still lost in 2008.
Granny says dat's right - ya s'posed to be confused... ... dat's dem politicians' motto... ... 'If ya can't dazzle `em with brilliance... ... baffle `em with B.S.'
` ` I have not found any news source that says Clinton lost but won more delegates than Sanders. The facts is, she didn't. ` `
the American election system seems quite outdated these days. The delegates made way more sense in the 19th century. I also don't understand why it takes that long to count the votes in the US compared to India. Oddly enough 38.4% of the votes is enough for 15 delegates and 60% is good for 13. She's enhancing her lead. She's got 431 delegates compared to Sanders' 50. Judging by those numbers you'd think she won Iowa and New Hampshire with over 70% of the votes...
http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/candidates/bernie-sanders http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/candidates/hillary-clinton Now you see what I see as well
Only if it's close? That's about a third of the vote. Bernie won NH by 22 points and is still losing the NH delegate count. Unless you consider 22 points to be neck and neck it doesn't have to be close at all.
It is because of the way the delegates are distributed: 8 are chosen statewide by the primary, 8 are chosen in Congressional District 1 by results, 8 are chosen in Congressional District 2 by results, and 8 are Superdelegates.
It's almost a third of the votes needed for the nomination, but the total votes available is 4763. I can see that my post wasn't as clear as it could have been. So it's actually 15% of the vote. I don't think the superdelegates are evenly distributed by state. The northeast likely has more than other areas. Worst-case scenario if 100% of the superdelegates went Clinton, Sanders would have to win with about 57% of the popular vote.
A 14 point margin isn't close either. My guess is that the margin will be over 10 which is impossible for Sanders to overcome.
Actually Obama won the race for super delegates back in 2008. When Clinton suspended her campaign Obama lead in Super delegates 478-246 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008 Depending on the source Clinton now leads Sanders counting super delegates somewhere between 392-42 to 523-62 which includes super delegates which are Democratic party leaders and Democratic elected officials, governors, senators and representatives. Of the elected officials Clinton has the endorsement of 143 of the 188 Democratic House of Representatives, 39 of 44 senators and 12 of 18 governors. Sanders has 2 Democratic representatives. All fall into the PLEO, party leaders and elected officials, all are delegates and can vote for whomever they endorse regardless of how any state votes. These elected officials give Hillary 194 delegates without a single vote being cast. Throw in the party leaders, DNC and state party leaders, Hillary has secured approximately 500 super delegates, at least according to the daily mail.
I asked a similar question in another thread. Basically, Super Delegates can override the peoples' vote, to (paraphrasing) keep the voters from making a dumb mistake. Frankly, it sounds undemocratic, if not criminal to me. I mean, what's the point of voting if these (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s have the last say?!
The Democratic party intensely opposes 1-person-1-vote democracy. Rather, the Democratic party functions as a political aristocracy for which each of their nobility may cast the equivalent of 10,000 to 50,000 votes each. It's quasi-modeled after the USSR and Chinese government in which those in power are who makes the decisions in party-elite meetings and brokering. Ordinary citizens are just peasants. They are allowed a voice, but a vastly inferior voice.
No it's not but that's a worst-case scenario, not a usual-case scenario. Oh yeah I think the source I was looking at was referring to this time of that campaign, to assess the meaning of Clinton's current lead.
The Democratic Party's aristocratic elite cast about 30% of all votes needed to win the nomination. In that, the opponent has to get nearly twice as many votes as the Democratic Party elite pick. This is a core reason it has always been claimed that no one can stop Hillary Clinton. She is a member of the Democratic aristocracy so began having over 20% of the necessary national Democratic delegate votes to win before the Iowa caucus even began. In addition, the Democratic Party also does not believe in 1 person for 1 vote even on us peasants' level, declaring that the votes of peasants in one region of a state get to cast more voters per person than other regions. So... while Sanders overwhelming won in New Hampshire and in all but one demographic group, the Democratic Party's aristocracy vetoed that outcome and instead declared that Hillary Clinton the winner.
Typical Democrat party corruption. I just heard Shawn Hannity a few minutes ago asking the same question you asked. Hillary got more New Hampshire delegates than Comrade Bernie Sanders did.
Twice as many? 43 vs 57% is about a third more, and would apply on the unlikely event that every superdelegate chose the other side. There are many undecided superdelegates still, and I'd expect their distribution to be more even. The elites didn't decide the outcome, rather both contests contribute to the final result and one of those contests is undemocratic. Not sure if I really believe in one person one vote. Some people are idiots, some are brilliant, and everybody specializes in a career which normally doesn't prepare them to evaluate policy decisions. That said, not sure if the superdelegates are ideal decisionmakers either.
Yeah, being a super delegate one can change their mind. But I do not see that happening this time around. Hillary is going south where blacks make up a third to over half of the Democratic primary votes. Where black favor Hillary around 80-15 margin. All Hillary has to do is not get flustered and make some huge dumb mistake. White liberals love Sanders, not so with minorities. Look at these figures in a South Carolina CBS poll, over all Clinton leads Sanders 60-38, Sanders leads Clinton among Democratic white voters 60-38, but Clinton leads Sanders among black voters 76-22. South Carolina Democratic primary voters are close to 60% black. In Georgia, Alabama, Texas, around 55% of all Democratic primary voters are non-white. 40% in North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee. Considering blacks are supporting Hillary by roughly a 80-15 margin. Sanders isn't going to do well down here even if he gets 60% of the white vote. http://www.scribd.com/doc/296491353/CBS-News-2016-Battleground-Tracker-South-Carolina-January-2016
Sanders won both the Iowa caucus and NH primary, yet Clinton has more delegates. Why is it still called "The Democratic Party?" The concept of super delegates is a "republic" concept, not a "democratic" concept, isn't it?
Actually Clinton barely won Iowa and Sanders handily won NH. Net result is Sanders has 8 more delegates of that kind. But there are far more superdelegates than that who have declared for Clinton, even though there are far fewer superdelegates than the ones meant to follow voters. America has always been a democratic republic. Don't know the origination of the democratic party name off the top of my head. It's not like even voting is the unbiased will of the people anyway. They're heavily influenced by money through ads, and whatever Fox or MSNBC choose to emphasize.